Parse a crate code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result is a canonical form, implying input normalization. It says nothing about malformed-input behavior, which is the remaining unknown for a pure decoder.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, zero padding, with the action front-loaded and the outcome trailing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The definition is nearly complete; only error handling for an invalid code is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies the format example (SC-W19-H21.5-L30.75) plus length bounds. The description adds only the loose phrase 'sizes and options' and no syntax or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (decode/parse) and resource (crate configuration code) and says what the output is: sizes, options, and a canonical form. It reads clearly as the inverse of encode_crate_code, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer on its own that this is the tool for turning an encoded code into structured values rather than quote_crate_by_code or encode_crate_code; nothing in the text routes it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.